maven-repo-maintainers mailing list archives

As long as the overridden version is selected over the bad one consistently when processing
transitive dependencies, it should be ok.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Casey [mailto:jdcasey@commonjava.org]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 3:11 PM
To: Maven Project Management Committee List
Subject: Re: Syncing stuff from java.net....
I really think we should allow these two versions to coexist, actually.
The dev.java.net people (or someone else in this position in future) may
have some reason for doing what they do, that suits an obscure use case
or something...the rest of us would use the improved POM.
Also, if people are publishing via Ant, and don't ever have direct
contact with people using Maven regularly, it's going to be a little
harder to motivate them to give us really good POM metadata IMO. So, I'd
say let them publish their own artifacts, but still make room for other
"interpretations" of the POM coming from users. There's really no reason
one of these has to win over the other, I wouldn't say.
Jesse McConnell wrote:
> ya, I would suggest duplicating the jar and making a new version,
> perhaps a notation for 1.0.4.p1, 1.0.4.p2 etc with just pom differences,
> even commenting in the pom.xml what the improvement is...
>
> unless we look at the idea brett was mentioning a while back about with
> supporting in place pom.xml updates of some form..
>
> jesse
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org
> <mailto:dkulp@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> On Friday 17 October 2008 11:09:40 am Brian E. Fox wrote:
> > I think this is a case like we discussed on the call where we put
> this
> > stuff under a new group id since we are now essentially owning
> the pom.
>
> I personally think changing the groupId is a bad idea. You can too
> easily
> get multiple versions of the same thing into your build and no
> telling what
> would happen. If one of your deps transitively depends
> on "groupA:artifact:1.0" and another depends on
> "groupB:artifact:1.0.1", you
> end up with both versions which can cause all kinds of ugly issues.
>
> If that's what needs to be done, I rather just copy the bad poms "as
> is" and
> keep the version/groupid as is. I'm quite OK with that. I was just
> hoping to clean things up a bit while doing it. It's definitely
> easier/faster if I don't spend the time doing that. :-)
>
> Dan
>
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dkulp@apache.org <mailto:dkulp@apache.org>]
> > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 10:39 AM
> > To: repo-maintainers@maven.apache.org
> <mailto:repo-maintainers@maven.apache.org>
> > Cc: private@maven.apache.org <mailto:private@maven.apache.org>
> > Subject: Syncing stuff from java.net....
> >
> >
> > Once again, I just got bit by the java.net <http://java.net>
> folks replacing a jar in their
> > repo with a different jar of same name/version. I didn't
> really notice
> > it for almost a month as my repo manager was doing it's job, but
> since the
> > project (CXF) is open source, others are now being hit by it.
> >
> > Thus, I think I need to spend some time at least getting my
> dependencies
> > from java.net <http://java.net> put into central so I can remove
> the java.net <http://java.net> repo from the
> > poms and avoid them. However, I have a "policy" question....
> >
> > The poms at java.net <http://java.net> tend to suck. As I copy
> things to central, I'd like
> > to update them to include things like license tags, organization
> tags,
> > URL's, names, descriptions, etc..... However, that will make
> the poms
> > at central different than the ones on java.net <http://java.net>.
> The jar itself would be
> > the same and I'd (most likely) leave the deps. Just update the
> metadata.
> >
> > So, the question is: do I change the version number? Example:
> > jaxb 2.1.7 -> jaxb 2.1.7-1
> > or similar? We did something like that for jaxws-api due to them
> > redeploying a jar of the same version. The "cons" to this is
> that the
> > version number is different. The "pro" is that if you depend on the
> > version in central, you ONLY will get it from central. If you have
> > java.net <http://java.net> repo in your pom, you won't get it
> from there.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org <mailto:dkulp@apache.org>
> http://dankulp.com/blog
>
>
>
>
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com <mailto:jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com>